Resource integration through digitalisation: a service...

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttps://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjmm20

Journal of Marketing Management

ISSN: 0267-257X (Print) 1472-1376 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjmm20

Resource integration through digitalisation: aservice ecosystem perspective

Alexey Sklyar, Christian Kowalkowski, David Sörhammar & Bård Tronvoll

To cite this article: Alexey Sklyar, Christian Kowalkowski, David Sörhammar & Bård Tronvoll(2019) Resource integration through digitalisation: a service ecosystem perspective, Journal ofMarketing Management, 35:11-12, 974-991, DOI: 10.1080/0267257X.2019.1600572

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2019.1600572

© 2019 The Author(s). Published by InformaUK Limited, trading as Taylor & FrancisGroup.

Published online: 09 Apr 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1073

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjmm20https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjmm20https://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/0267257X.2019.1600572https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2019.1600572https://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=rjmm20&show=instructionshttps://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=rjmm20&show=instructionshttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/0267257X.2019.1600572https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/0267257X.2019.1600572http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/0267257X.2019.1600572&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2019-04-09http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/0267257X.2019.1600572&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2019-04-09https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/0267257X.2019.1600572#tabModulehttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/0267257X.2019.1600572#tabModule

Resource integration through digitalisation: a serviceecosystem perspectiveAlexey Sklyar a, Christian Kowalkowski a, David Sörhammar b and Bård Tronvoll c,d

aDepartment of Management and Engineering, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden; bStockholmBusiness School, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden; cInland Norway University of Applied Sciences,Elverum, Norway; dCTF – Service Research Centre, Karlstad University, Karlstad, Sweden

ABSTRACTAs digitalisation increasingly encompasses entire service ecosys-tems, it modifies resource integration patterns that connect eco-system actors through strong and weak ties. To clarify howtechnological development contributes to this change, and howresource integration transforms the service ecosystem, this qua-litative case study explores the digitalisation strategy of a market-leading systems integrator in the maritime industry. Based on 40depth interviews with managers, the findings show how technol-ogy increasingly serves as a key operant resource in the transfor-mation of resource integration patterns. The study contributes toecosystem dynamics research by identifying major differencesbetween the pre-digitalised and digitalised states of a serviceecosystem, and demonstrates the dual role of technology inboth increasing pattern complexity and facilitating coordinationof that complexity.

ARTICLE HISTORYReceived 14 February 2018Accepted 8 March 2019

KEYWORDSDigitalisation; serviceecosystems; resourceintegration; servitization;strong and weak ties;operant resources

Introduction

From back-office efficiency to reconfigured production, distribution and service opera-tions, digitalisation enables incumbent firms to find new ways of providing solutionofferings to their customers (Sklyar, Kowalkowski, Tronvoll, & Sörhammar, 2019). Giventhat no business is an island (Håkansson & Snehota, 1989), this transformation extendsbeyond the individual firm (Ulaga & Reinartz, 2011) to encompass resource integrationbetween actors embedded in larger structures as elements of an ecosystem(Granovetter, 1985; Vargo & Lusch, 2016). Resource integration is the means by whichactors co-create context-specific, uniquely determined value, both for themselves andfor other actors in the ecosystem (Kleinaltenkamp et al., 2012). In recent years, digitaltechnology has become a critical facilitator of value co-creation (e.g. Balaji & Roy, 2017).In this process of changing resource integration patterns, the distinct configuration ofactors, resources and activities enabled by new technology transforms service ecosys-tems (e.g. Håkansson, 1989; Storbacka, Brodie, Böhmann, Maglio, & Nenonen, 2016). Atthe same time, technologies have become smarter, incorporating more human-likecapabilities and increasingly acting without human intervention (Maglio & Lim, 2018).

CONTACT Alexey Sklyar [email protected]

JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT2019, VOL. 35, NOS. 11–12, 974–991https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2019.1600572

© 2019 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in anymedium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5483-1745http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4081-9737http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5558-9014http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5605-9285http://www.tandfonline.comhttp://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/0267257X.2019.1600572&domain=pdf

As a result, the role of technology – and especially of digital or information technology –has shifted from operand to operant resource (Akaka & Vargo, 2014; Lusch & Nambisan,2015). This novel role remains underexplored and warrants further investigation(Kleinaltenkamp et al., 2012).

The rapid anddisruptive nature of technological changemakes it vital that incumbent firmsare able to reconfigure their resource integration patterns, both in their own strategic interestsand for the viability of the ecosystem as a whole (cf. Storbacka et al., 2016). However, inpursuing digital service transformation, incumbent firms are likely to encounter a paradox, asthe resources that brought success in its traditional domain may become ‘core rigidities’ thatconstrain transformation (Leonard-Barton, 1992). These core rigidities emerge within a pre-existing network of strong and weak ties (Granovetter, 1973), where strongly tied patterns ofresource integration make it difficult to adapt to technology-driven environmental changes(Lieberman &Montgomery, 1988). As little is known about the links between overcoming corerigidities and changes in service ecosystems, there is a need for empirical research on thesignificance of strong andweak ties in the context of digitalisation. By examining the interplaybetween the technology and ecosystem change, the aim of the present study is to clarify howresource integration among actors connected by strong and weak ties transforms the serviceecosystem.

Based on in-depth interviews and secondary sources, this extensive study ofa market-leading systems integrator pursuing a digitalisation strategy reveals howdigital transformation within the ecosystem increases the importance of software anddigital services in the interactions between actors. As technology mediates thoseinteractions, building a digital infrastructure becomes fundamental to the viability ofthe service ecosystem, extending software to third-party offerings without beingconfined to the hardware of a single supplier.

The findings further suggest that digitalisation of the service ecosystem increasesthe number and importance of weak ties, corresponding to the growing scalability ofdigital services across customer segments, creation of real-time information links, andintegration of software interfaces between previously unconnected actors. Our find-ings also demonstrate that technology’s increasing role as an operant resource isclosely linked to changes in resource integration patterns. As software and digitalservices become critical to resource integration, that integration becomes increasinglyeffective by virtue of technological support for continuous interaction and the accom-panying need for greater coordination.

As the first known empirical study to explicitly link discussion of operand andoperant resources to resource integration patterns, the present paper enhances ourunderstanding of service ecosystem dynamics and change. In addition, it augmentsresearch at the intersection of the literature on service-dominant logic and strong andweak ties. Despite growing research interest in this area, only a few studies to date(Laud, Karpen, Mulye, & Rahman, 2015; Lusch & Vargo, 2014; Lusch, Vargo, & Tanniru,2010; Siltaloppi & Vargo, 2017) have linked these two discourses. The study revealsmajor differences between the pre-digitalised and digitalised states of a service eco-system and demonstrates the dual role of technology in (1) increasing the complexityof resource integration patterns and (2) enabling actors to successfully coordinate andmanage that complexity.

JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 975

Theoretical framework

Resource integration in service ecosystems

Service-dominant (S-D) logic offers a multi-actor, systems view of value co-creation, empha-sising the integration of resources for the benefit of economic and social actors (Lusch &Vargo, 2014). Like all actors, incumbent firms integrate resources as part of their valuecreation process. This ability and permission to use or integrate a resource is what ultimatelyfacilitates exchanges between actors (e.g. Kleinaltenkamp et al., 2012). We argue here thatcontinuous resource integration creates strongly tied resource-integrating patterns thatbecome institutionalised in a specific use context. This process of interaction between actorscreates core rigidities in a service ecosystem, enabling resource integration that simulta-neously constrains change (e.g. by inhibiting adoption of new technologies).

Service ecosystems serve increasingly as the context and unit of analysis for valueco-creation and resource integration (Vargo & Lusch, 2016). A service ecosystem canbe defined as a ‘relatively self-contained, self-adjusting system of resource-integrating actors connected by shared institutional arrangements and mutualvalue creation through service exchange’ (Lusch & Vargo, 2014, p. 161). This serviceecosystem perspective pursues a systemic, dynamic and contextual understanding(Chandler, Danatzis, Wernicke, Akaka, & Reynolds, 2019; Tronvoll, 2017). This is criticalfor understanding the complexity of digitalisation in service ecosystems, as thestructure drives behaviour within the system, and any shift in the underlying rulesof the system can serve as a powerful point of leverage for change (Meadows, 2008).While a better understanding of an ecosystem’s underlying institutional rules canprovide a more holistic understanding of resource integration patterns, it is impor-tant to account for institutions as a mechanism of coordination and cooperation formutual value creation.

Ecosystem change and the strength of weak ties

Resource integration does not happen by accident; rather, institutions coordinate howresources are integrated (Edvardsson, Kleinaltenkamp, Tronvoll, McHugh, & Windahl,2014). An institution is ‘any structure or mechanism of social order and cooperationgoverning the behaviour of a set of individuals within a given human community’(Miller, 2014, p. 514). To that extent, institutions can be said to specify ‘the rules of thegame’ (North, 1990, p. 4), including ‘regulative, normative and cultural-cognitive ele-ments that, together with associated activities and resources, provide stability andmeaning to social life’ (Scott, 2008, p. 48). The role of institutions, then, is to provideguidelines and resources for action, and to prohibit or constrain certain activities andinteractions among engaged actors. In this way, institutions influence resource inte-gration patterns, both through formal constraints, such as rules and laws, and bymeansof informal constraints, such as norms and conventions. It follows that individualinstitutions rarely act in isolation but operate as nested and interrelated sets ofinstitutions or institutional arrangements that govern actors (Lawrence & Suddaby,2006), constraining and enabling resource integration. To that extent, institutions canserve as powerful drivers of change and can shape the nature of change across service

976 A. SKLYAR ET AL.

ecosystem levels and contexts (Dacin, Goodstein, & Scott, 2002). An ecosystem’sinstitutional arrangements commonly include a combination of deeply embeddedstrong ties and loosely affiliated weak ties (Uzzi, 1996).

An ecosystem perspective posits that the formation of a business network or anorganisation (internal network) occurs within a pre-existing network of strong and weakties (Granovetter, 1973). On each occasion that actors integrate resources, they are likelyto learn something that makes the next iteration slightly different in adapting toa changed context, making the ecosystem self-adjusting. Such changes can be under-stood as structural adjustments (Evans, 1989) or as alterations to the system overtime.Ecosystem actors become strongly tied overtime as they learn to utilise each other’sheterogeneous resources in a more precise and productive way (Alchian & Demsetz,1972), creating core rigidities by adapting their internal processes and routines to bettermatch each other’s resources. The more adapted their internal processes and routinesbecome, the stronger the ties between actors (Granovetter, 1973). Ties can be broadlycharacterised in terms of three concentric circles of social relationships: (i) strong ties, (ii)weak ties and (iii) no ties (that is, no relationships among actors, as if they werestrangers) (Aldrich, Elam, & Reese, 1996; Granovetter, 1973). This implies that all resourceintegration within a service ecosystem occurs between strongly and weakly tied actors.It also implies that a single actor is dependent on resources controlled by other actors –both for its own strategic benefit and for the viability of the ecosystem as a whole (e.g.Johanson & Mattsson, 1994).

Strongly tied ecosystem actors integrate more resources with each other than withweakly tied actors. These repeated activities also foster trust between the actors, facil-itating collective action (Burt, 2003; Ostrom, 1990) in the form of effective and efficientresource integration. The more frequently resources are integrated, the more mutuallyknowledgeable actors become. As no new resources flow between strongly tied actors,these strong links create core rigidities and redundancy in the ecosystem, which inevi-tably constrains structural opportunities (e.g. Granovetter, 1973). These core rigidities(Leonard-Barton, 1992) often take the form of practices regarding what resources tointegrate and how best to integrate them. The rigidities formed by these institutiona-lised rules make it difficult for the incumbent firm to adapt, and this ‘incumbent inertia’may even create resistance to environmental change (Lieberman & Montgomery, 1988).As the only way for an actor in an ecosystem to acquire novel resources beyond thosealready available is to interact with weakly tied actors, weak ties play a crucial role inecosystem transformation and adaptation to new conditions (cf. Granovetter, 1983),such as digitalisation. As such, the ‘strength of weak ties’ depends on the structuralreconfiguration of strong and weak ties (Granovetter, 1973; Newman & Dale, 2005).

Technology as operand and operant resource

Technology has been described as both operand resource (facilitator or enabler) andoperant resource (initiator or actor) in value creation (Lusch & Nambisan, 2015). Digitaland technological advances mean that machines, technologies and other resourcespreviously considered operand are now increasingly capable of adjusting to theirenvironment as operant resources (Akaka & Vargo, 2014). By viewing technology as anoperant resource, actors can extend their ability to reconfigure resource integration


patterns within the ecosystem, as for example in information technology’s capacity toenable and facilitate knowledge sharing and coordination (Nambisan, 2013).

Unlike strongly tied ecosystem actors, weakly tied actors are more likely to perceivenew properties as a resource – for instance, seeing the potential to separate andtransport information independently of people and materials (Normann, 2001). Weaklytied actors can also visualise how that same resource can be recombined (or unbundledand rebundled; Normann, 2001) into new resource integration patterns. In contrast,a service ecosystem involving strongly linked actors may not perceive these possibilities;in one well-known example, technology company Kodak and other strongly linkedactors perfected the process of developing film, but weakly linked actors like Applevisualised how to utilise disruptive digital technologies in this context. While weaklylinked actors can see operant properties of such new technologies – that is, as resourcesthat produce effects – strongly linked incumbent firms tend to perceive these technol-ogies as an operand resource, on which an act is performed (e.g. Lusch & Nambisan,2015). In this sense, technologies and their resource value are socially constructed(Orlikowski, 1992; Pinch & Bijker, 1984; Wieland, Hartmann, & Vargo, 2017) by institu-tional rules within the ecosystem.

The core rigidities of strongly tied actors create institutionalised rules that determine themeaning of certain resources, which resources to integrate, and how to best integrate thoseresources. When the service ecosystem is undisturbed by disruptive technology, it conformsto Alderson’s (1965) idea of a perfectly heterogeneous market, in which actors possess andexchange unique resources, and a resource’s value depends on how it is integrated withother resources and on how that integration is perceived by the beneficiary (Lusch & Vargo,2014). In cases of technology-driven environmental change, however, the ecosystem’sinstitutionalised rules may inhibit change or even blind the actors to the potential usevalue of the new or altered resource. The concept of change is of direct concern toincumbent firms seeking to adjust resource integration patterns in the service ecosystem.From an S-D logic perspective, change is ongoing, as each resource integration activitycreates potential change in respect of all operand and operant resources (Kowalkowski,Persson Ridell, Röndell, & Sörhammar, 2012). This highlights how ecosystem actors canchange and adapt their resource integration patterns, and how technology, seen increas-ingly as an operant resource, contributes to this transformation.

Research method

Approach and sampling

To address the research objective, a qualitative case study was conducted. While thetopic of resource integration has received increased attention of late, especially withinS-D logic, the role of technology in this regard remains unclear. It was, therefore,deemed appropriate to employ an in-depth case study to better understand and explainthe complex social phenomenon of digital transformation (Bryman & Bell, 2015). Theabductive research process (Dubois & Gadde, 2002) entailed iterative movementbetween the literature and empirical observation.

Using a purposeful sampling approach (Miles & Huberman, 1994), we negotiatedaccess to a market-leading systems integrator that has actively pursued a digitalisation


strategy. The company (Navicula1) is part of an established multinational industry groupand is a market leader worldwide. As a systems integrator, Navicula is part of a businessecosystem providing maritime solutions, including a wide range of equipment andonshore and offshore services. Customers are typically vessel owners and operatorsresponsible for large international fleets. Because of the sensitive nature of the study,the company and participating individuals were anonymised to preserve confidentiality.

The case was selected on the basis of three inclusion criteria. First, the companyshould have made a strategic shift to embrace digitalisation and service-led growth. Inthis regard, managers and executives in the multinational’s central functions – which areindependent of one another – identified Navicula as the group’s leading firm in terms ofdigital transformation, prompting us to approach the company’s key decision makers.The company had successfully pursued what Sklyar et al. (2019) refer to as ‘digitalservitization’; that is, the utilisation of digital tools for the transformational processeswhereby a company shifts from a product-centric to a service-centric business model.A second criterion was ongoing strategic investment in digitalisation, which wouldenable us to analyse the changing role of technology in resource integration whileavoiding the kind of speculative future-oriented discussion that is typical of such studies.Third, we required high-level access to key informants and secondary data sources(including confidential internal documents). By focusing data collection on the principalactor in the ecosystem, this actor-network delimitation ensures more reliable compar-ison and theory development (Halinen & Törnroos, 2005).

Data collection and analysis

From May 2016 to December 2017, 40 in-depth interviews were conducted with 33 keyinformants at Navicula and within the wider multinational industry group. The interviewsvaried in duration from 30min to 3.5 h, depending on the importance of the interview and theinformant’s accessibility. Informants were identified by means of snowball sampling(Coleman, 1958), mainly involving discussions with the vice president in charge of thedigitalisation initiative. All but three of the interviews were conducted face-to-face at one ofthe company sites across Europe. Video/phone interviews were conducted where the respon-dent worked in another part of the world and/or follow-upmeetings did not require a face-to-face meeting. In most cases, one to three researchers and one company representativeparticipated in the interview; occasionally, there were several informants. As recommendedby Miles and Huberman (1994), when new questions emerged, key informants were re-engaged in order to acquire more detailed accounts. Overall, informants exhibited greatopenness and genuine interest in the study. Table 1 provides further details of the interviews.

The semi-structured interviews sought to unravel the changes occurring in the serviceecosystem as it moved from a pre-digitalised to a digitalised state. In particular, we wereinterested in developing an in-depth understanding of resource integration mechanismsand the ties between actors in the ecosystem. For that reason, we tailored our questions toeach informant in light of their position, knowledge and experience. Primary data alsoincluded observations made during meetings (e.g. sales pitches to potential clients) andvisits to the two state-of-the-art service centres launched by the company to support digitaltransformation. Secondary data were acquired from internal company documents (e.g.strategy documents, press releases), as well as from websites, newspapers and social media.


In total, the interview transcripts yielded about 700 pages of single-spaced text. Oncesaturation was achieved, transcripts, notes and secondary data were read and coded toidentify key issues and themes, using NVivo software (Hoover & Koerber, 2011). Coding wasbased on comparative content analysis supported by peer evaluation (Miles & Huberman,1994). All the researchers who collected the data also participated in coding for indepen-dent parallel analysis and triangulation (Bryman & Bell, 2015). The process of analysisinvolved reading the interview transcripts and field notes and then comparing and inter-preting each record, facilitating re-extraction and re-coding of the data based on discussionsbetween the researchers. After categorising the data on the basis of the theoretical frame-work (Yin, 2009), the findings were compared to the current literature, and a report waswritten, with a descriptive summary for each category (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2012).

Findings

Pre-digitalised service ecosystem

Prior to the early 2010s, Navicula’s ecosystem was in what we characterise as a pre-digitalised state. In the absence of a digital infrastructure that would allow continuousreal-time connection, actors interacted by means of analogue or non-continuous digital

Table 1. Conducted interviews.

Informant’s positionInterview duration(hours and minutes)

Analyst (Customer Service), two informants 01:12 02:08Business Development, Global Service 00:30 01:00Executive Business Unit Manager 00:54Global Product & Portfolio Manager (Digital Solutions) 01:28Global Sales & Business Development 01:42Global Technical Support Manager 01:30 01:00Global Technical Support Manager 01:49Information Manager & Global Product Manager 02:33Integrated Operations Program Manager 01:28New Energy Efficiency Manager 01:35Product Manager 00:53Project Manager 00:23Project Manager 01:47Sales engineer (IT) 00:30Senior Vice President (Collaborative Operations) 01:08 01:27 03:30 00:30Senior Vice President (Customer Segment) 01:54Senior Vice President (Global Operations) 01:39Senior Vice President (Information & Control) 01:24Service Manager 01:01 00:13Service Manager (Local Region) 01:26Service Sales Manager Merchant 00:30Technical Advisor 01:20Technology Manager 00:23Vice President (Customer Segment) 01:30 01:00Vice President (Digital Services) 01:08 01:00 03:20Vice President (Head of Global Services) 01:08 01:38Vice President (Region) 01:41Vice President (Service) 01:41Embedded Systems Coordinator (Multinational Industry Group) 01:26Project Manager, Corporate Research (Multinational Industry Group) 01:30Senior Scientist, Industrial Software System (Multinational Industry Group) 01:30User Experience & Industrial Design (Multinational Industry Group) 01:30


communication (e.g. email). At the operational level, this affected interaction betweenboth onshore and offshore units (individual vessels) of Navicula and its customers. Forthe latter group, the absence of real-time information links to onshore units amountedto the relative isolation of vessels, which typically had to act largely independently whenoperational.

In addition to this information disconnect between onshore and offshore units,individual vessels were subject to intra-unit information disconnect. As the captainand bridge crew overseeing the vessel and navigation and the chief engineer andengine room crew responsible for vital technical systems are traditionally located indifferent parts of the vessel, the absence of any real-time digital infrastructure limitedtheir information exchange. This meant that the chief engineer and engine room crewwere entirely responsible for maintaining equipment in working condition but generallyhad minimal input to navigational aspects of operation.

The effect of this relative isolation of individual vessels and intra-unit informationdisconnect was that while customers’ onshore units typically had a remote connection tothe captain and bridge crew, Navicula’s onshore unit was remotely connected to the chiefengineer and engine room crew, as the firm’s offerings at that time focused exclusively onthose actors. Overall, neither group had continuous remote access to entire vessels, effec-tively turning the vessels into ‘black boxes’ for onshore units in terms of real-time informa-tion. Figure 1 provides an overview of the pre-digitalised service ecosystem, showing thecritical interactions between key actors as described (i.e. the focal firm was in realityinteracting with multiple customers that operated numerous vessels).

Customer’sonshore unit onshore unit

Focal firm’s

Remote Remoteconnection tochief engineer

and engineroom crew

Non-continuous exchange of information

Independent/isolated customer’s offshore unit

Captain

Real-timemonitoredhardware

Chief engineer

LEGEND: Non-real-time information link

Real-time information link

Engine room crew

Algorithms

Sensors Service /software 1

Bridge crew

connection tocaptain andbridge crew

Intra-unitinformationdisconnect

Figure 1. Pre-digitalised service ecosystem.


In the service ecosystem described above, technology played a secondary, supportingrole and the existing infrastructure limited the extent and scope of digital offerings. Servicesin the pre-digitalised ecosystem were developed with a focus on hardware, resulting inlimited scalability across customer segments and restricted extendability to third-partysuppliers. As an example of such a hardware-centric service, Navicula introduced a digitaloffering for remote monitoring of the hardware developed within Navicula’s multinationalindustry group. The underlying software had originally been offered as a service by a firmfrom the same group that was not operating in the maritime industry. The firm’s strongconnections to Navicula – including an ongoing R&D collaboration – prompted Navicula toadapt the offering to the maritime context. After significantly improving the software,Navicula offered the service to the customer segment that was explicitly requesting thisfunctionality. Despite success in one customer segment, extending this digital offering toother segments or to third-party hardware suppliers was not feasible at the time because ofthe service ecosystem’s pre-digitalised state. This represented a major obstacle, which waseliminated only after the ecosystem was digitalised.

Digitalised service ecosystem

From the early 2010s, Navicula’s ecosystem transitioned into what we describe asa digitalised state. With Navicula driving the change, rapid technological develop-ments enabled the ecosystem actors to build a digital infrastructure for continuousreal-time connectivity, and as a result, digital technology now mediated all actors’interactions. As part of this new infrastructure, Navicula and its customers createdonshore operations centres to integrate digital activities at a single physical location.In turn, interactions between Navicula and its customers now employed Navicula’scustomer portal and its numerous interfaces, each customised for a specific user. Theportal allowed immediate access to data accumulated at ever-increasing speed andreaching unparalleled volumes; storage was enabled by the previously non-existingthird-party cloud services.

Digitalisation of the service ecosystem also affected interactions between onshoreand offshore units. Real-time remote connectivity eliminated the relative isolation ofvessels, allowing continuous monitoring by the onshore operations centres of Naviculaand its customers. These operation centres could also access the entire vessel ratherthan only some on-board actors as was the case in the pre-digitalised ecosystem. Finally,instead of interacting only with human actors and collecting information from them, theonshore units were now able to receive data directly from the source (e.g. sensors),storing this information remotely in the cloud for easy access by any actor – onshore oroffshore – through Navicula’s customer portal.

The customer portal also resolved the intra-unit information disconnect that under-mined the pre-digitalised ecosystem, allowing simultaneous remote access for both thecaptain and bridge crew and the chief engineer and engine room crew. For these twogroups of actors, their decision-making processes were significantly enhanced by thistechnology-enabled continuous intra-unit exchange of information. Overall, the previoussituation in which vessels were seen as ‘black boxes’ in terms of real-time informationwas radically changed, with offshore operations fully transparent both to onshore units


and internally. Figure 2 provides an overview of the digitalised service ecosystem,depicting critical interactions between key actors.

In the digitalised ecosystem described above, technology moved from a secondary andsupporting role to being critical to interaction, and customers now viewed digital offeringsas a key selection criterion when choosing suppliers. This increasing customer demand fordigital services and the rapid development of relevant technologies radically transformedhow ecosystem actors interacted. For example, in driving the ecosystem’s digitalisation,Navicula integrated all digital services and associated software in a single platform on thecustomer portal, providing all actors with continuous access to salient information.

The ecosystem also began the transition from hardware- to software-centric services. Forexample, Navicula developed digital offerings built around software that was compatiblewith third-party hardware, providing navigational advice to the captain and bridge crew,along with energy-efficiency advice to those same actors and to the chief engineer andengine room crew. Various interfaces including third-party sensors extended the function-ality of these digital services to an unrivalled extent, making Navicula the only player in themarket to integrate a full spectrum of information for its customers. Finally, the new digitalinfrastructure allowed the firm to scale and extend these novel services across customersegments in a way that would have been impossible in the pre-digitalised ecosystem.

Customer’s Third-party Focal firm’sonshore unit

onshoreoperations

center

Cloud

Focal Focal firm’sfirm’s

customerportal

Captain

Chief engineer

LEGEND: Real-time information link

Real-time information link withinfocal firm’s digital infrastructure

Engine room crew

Service/software 1

Smart Smartalgorithmssensors

Service/software 2


Service/software 3


Real-time Third-

Focal firm’scustomerportal

partysensors

monitoredhardware

Bridge crew

Customer’sContinuous exchange

of informationContinuous exchange

of information

Remoteconnectionto entireoffshore unit

Remoteconnection

to entireoffshore unit

Onshore-monitored customer’s offshore unit

Intra-unitinformationexchange

Intra-unitinformationexchange

onshoreoperations

center

onshore unit

Figure 2. Digitalised service ecosystem.


Discussion

Our findings reveal three major differences between the pre-digitalised and digitalisedstates of the service ecosystem in terms of the interplay between technology, strong andweak ties and resource integration patterns. In the pre-digitalised ecosystem, interac-tions between actors typically relied on non-continuous (e.g. analogue) communication;as a result, strong ties predominated in resource integration patterns. For example, theoperational decision-making of key on-board actors was based mainly on interactionswith other actors located in close proximity and linked by strong ties (i.e. thoseunaffected by the intra-unit information disconnect). In contrast, the digitalised ecosys-tem technology enabled weak ties to play a significant role in mediating interactions; forexample, the real-time on-board operations of entire vessels now became accessible forpreviously disconnected actors. As a result, novel resource integration patterns wereformed as the technology facilitated weakly tied interactions, reflecting the positedprofound effect of digitalisation on resource integration patterns (Storbacka et al.,2016). In this way, technology became critical for resource integration, reflecting itstransition from operand to operant resource.

The prevalence of resource integration patterns based on strong ties in the pre-digitalised ecosystem is further exemplified by the low scalability of digital services. Forexample, although the focal firm created a digital offering for one of its customersegments, strong ties prevented scaling up of the service for other segments. Corerigidities meant that most customers were unprepared to integrate novel resourcesbecause of the scarcity of weak ties. In contrast, the digitalised ecosystem made itpossible to scale up this and other services across segments where weak ties now linkedpreviously unconnected actors. The digital infrastructure played a critical role in improv-ing the scalability of digital services by enabling continuous information links betweenactors, so increasing the number of weak ties within the ecosystem. This aligns with theextant literature suggesting that digital infrastructure can help to bring diverse actorstogether, enabling collaboration in the ecosystem (Lusch & Nambisan, 2015).

The two states of the ecosystem also influenced the effectiveness of resource inte-gration. In the pre-digitalised ecosystem, actors were often forced to interact in waysthat were close to analogue, relying on strong ties that would create core rigidities,resulting in relatively ineffective resource integration patterns. In the digitalised ecosys-tem, on the other hand, onshore units’ continuous access to vessels and on-board intra-unit information exchange enabled resource integration that involved many more actorsin co-creation. In this way, real-time digital connectivity ultimately increased the overalleffectiveness of resource integration patterns. These findings align with the positedimportance of weak ties for improving resource exchange in service ecosystems (Laudet al., 2015) and provide empirical support for the role of digitalisation in enhancing thevarious patterns’ effectiveness (Storbacka et al., 2016). The findings also confirm thechanged role of technology from operand to operant resource, where the latter isconsidered fundamental to service ecosystems (Akaka & Vargo, 2014).

Together with associated changes in ties between actors and in resource integrationpatterns, themajor difference between the two states of the ecosystem in relation to softwareand hardware further confirms the changed role of technology. In the pre-digitalised ecosys-tem, there was a close link between the suppliers’ internal development of software and


hardware, resulting in hardware-centric digital services. In the digitalised ecosystem, however,the focal firm concentrated on novel types of resource integration, creatingmultiple interfaceswith third-party offerings from weakly tied suppliers. As a result, the number and scope ofthose interfaces distinguished the firm’s ecosystem fundamentally from its competitors. Thelatter remained focused on the traditional strong ties that would ultimately lead to theformation of core rigidities, making it impossible (at the time) to provide their customerswith such novel offerings. In contrast, resource integration patterns in the focal ecosystemoriginated fromweakly tied, technology-enabled interactions, resulting inmore value creationfor all actors. These findings confirm the posited role of weak ties ‘in offering a relativeadvantage in competing resource-driven service systems’ (Laud et al., 2015, p. 519).

The growing complexity of the resource integration patterns due to the increasednumber of actors in the digitalised ecosystem also required greater coordination of resourceintegration activities. For example, the creation of a customer portal by the focal firmallowed resources to be integrated between multiple actors in a way that would not havebeen possible in the pre-digitalised ecosystem. Despite the radical increase in patterncomplexity, technology enabled this coordination, confirming the posited importance ofimproving access to resource-integrating actors and their resources (e.g. Madhavaram &Hunt, 2008; Wieland et al., 2017). This finding also extends discussion of the ‘choreography’of resource integration patterns (Storbacka et al., 2016) by demonstrating the dual role oftechnology in increasing pattern complexity and enabling service ecosystem actors tosuccessfully address this issue. Table 2 summarises the discussion around focal serviceecosystem transformation from pre-digitalised to digitalised, based on changes in technol-ogy, strong and weak ties and resource integration patterns.

Implications for theory and practice

Theoretical implications

As the first known empirical study to explicitly link discussion of operand/operant resources(Lusch & Vargo, 2014; Madhavaram & Hunt, 2008) and resource integration patterns(Storbacka et al., 2016), the present work enhances our understanding of service ecosystemdynamics and change. In particular, the case study design illuminates how technology’schanging role as an operant resource is linked to the posited impact of digitalisation onresource integration patterns, providing empirical support for the latter. The study exposesa clear distinction between the pre-digitalised and digitalised states of a service ecosystem,involving the radical transformation of interactions between actors. While actors in the pre-digitalised ecosystem interacted in relatively ineffective and close to analogue ways, real-time digital connectivity improved the overall effectiveness of resource integration patterns.By facilitating coordination between actors, technology as an operant resource provedcritical in enhancing ecosystem interactions. In this regard, technology played a dual role,increasing the complexity of resource integration patterns while enabling ecosystem actorsto better manage this complexity.

In addition, the study contributes to research at the intersection of service-dominantlogic and strong and weak ties. Despite growing interest in this area, only a few studies(Laud et al., 2015; Lusch & Vargo, 2014; Lusch et al., 2010; Siltaloppi & Vargo, 2017) havelinked these two discourses. The findings suggest that the modified role of technology is


directly associated with the increasing importance of weak ties between actors withinthe service ecosystem. It is commonly thought that the marginal cost of producing andupscaling service operations should ideally be close to zero once digital services are inplace (Rifkin, 2014). Interestingly, the present findings show that digital services alonewere insufficient for effective resource integration through scalability, given the pre-dominantly strong ties and low degrees of digital maturity among ecosystem actors.Instead, implementation of a digital infrastructure was required in order to transformresource integration patterns by increasing the number of weak ties. In this way, thestudy further extends discussion of the effects of digitalisation on resource integrationpatterns (Storbacka et al., 2016) by incorporating the discourse on strong and weak ties.

Managerial implications

At a practical level, the present study has important implications for firms operating inenvironments where digitalisation is imminent or ongoing. First, we suggest that managerscan rely on the changed status of technology to actively influence their service ecosystem. Asthese findings confirm, the increasingly critical role of technology in both intra- and inter-organisational interaction drives ecosystem transformation through the creation of an

Table 2. Service ecosystem transformation from pre-digitalised to digitalised.Serviceecosystem Technology Strong and weak ties Resource integration patterns

Pre-digitalised The available software anddigital services playa secondary, supporting rolein the ecosystem, reflectingtechnology’s role as operandresource.

Digital services are mainlyscalable within (but notacross) customer segmentsbecause of core rigidities,with weak ties playinga minor role.

Interactions between actors arenot continuously mediatedby digital technology;software and digital servicesare less prominent inresource integration patterns.

Digital infrastructure is non-existent and mostly analoguein its efficiency.

Strong ties between actorspredominate because ofa scarcity of continuous real-time information links.

Resource integration patternsare ineffective because ofisolation among the mainactors (e.g. between onshoreand offshore units).

Software is closely linked tohardware, usually within (butnot across) suppliers.

The role of weak ties is minimalbecause software andhardware integration occursmainly within suppliers.

Low complexity of resourceintegration patterns meansno significant effort is madeto coordinate actors’ resourceintegration activities.

Digitalised Software and digital servicesplay a fundamental role inthe ecosystem, reflectingtechnology’s role as operantresource.

Scalability of digital servicesextends across customersegments, with weak tiesgrowing in importance.

Interactions between actors areincreasingly mediated bydigital technology, withsoftware and digital servicesbecoming critical to resourceintegration patterns.

The created digitalinfrastructure becomesindispensable for the serviceecosystem’s viability.

The number of weak tiesincreases because ofcontinuous real-timeinformation links betweenactors.

Resource integration patternsbecome considerably moreeffective as a result of theelimination of isolationbetween actors.

Software becomes increasinglyindependent of any singlesupplier’s hardware and isextended to third-partyofferings.

Weak ties grow in importanceas a result of widespreadintegration of softwareinterfaces across suppliers.

As the complexity of resourceintegration patterns increasesconsiderably, more effort isrequired if actors are tocoordinate their resourceintegration activities.


ecosystem-wide digital infrastructure. The latter enables incumbent firms to establish con-tinuous information links between previously disconnected individuals, divisions and organi-sations and provides a means of overcoming established core rigidities. In particular, wherecore rigidities obstruct adaptation to environmental changes, resolving the informationdisconnect enhances decision-making processes and transparency of operations across theservice ecosystem. As a result of this transformation, the increased effectiveness of interac-tions enables incumbent firms to adapt to rapid technological changes in their environmentand to successfully leverage such changes for critical competitive advantage – both forindividual firms and for the ecosystem as a whole.

Second, an ecosystem-wide digital infrastructure is likely to be of help to firms facingscalability challenges in relation to digital services. Without this infrastructure, digitalservices are often confined to individual customers or customer segments, and are,therefore, scalable only to a limited extent (if at all). In contrast, by enabling continuousinformation links between players, digital infrastructure improves collaboration in theecosystem, so improving scalability across customer segments. Moreover, as customerwillingness to adopt novel offerings depends largely on the potential benefits, theinfrastructure underpinning digital services offers a strong incentive to use them andprovides access to previously unreachable players in the ecosystem.

Third, given the increasingly complex interactions among a growing number of ecosys-tem actors, our findings suggest the importance of coordinating crucial activities within theecosystem. To this end, a firm driving the transformation can create a platform that unifiesall players and provides them with continuous access to business-critical data and informa-tion (as in the customer portal described here). On a closely related point, managers shouldalso consider extending the software that underpins digital services beyond their ownfirm’s hardware. Multiple interfaces with third-party offerings render digital services inde-pendent of any single hardware supplier, with additional benefits for the entire ecosystem.For example, suppliers can secure sustained competitive advantage by broadening thefunctionality of their offerings to otherwise unattainable levels. In turn, both customers andpartners can benefit from more value created by such software-based synergies, ultimatelyenhancing the competitiveness of the ecosystem as a whole.

Limitations and further research

This study has several limitations that suggest fruitful avenues for further research. First,while we sought to provide an inclusive account of resource integration throughdigitalisation within the focal service ecosystem, future studies might usefully corrobo-rate our findings by investigating other contexts and types of ecosystem. This seemsespecially interesting in light of the likely differences between industries when pursuingdigitalisation. For instance, while in the present case the new digital infrastructurebecame indispensable for ecosystem viability in eliminating between-actor isolation,industries that do not share the same high degree of isolation might experiencea different outcome. Additionally, while the maritime context explored here exemplifiesa relatively advanced digitalised service ecosystem, other industries may not yet havereached this stage, and cross-industry comparison may therefore be useful. In particular,it would be interesting to compare differing approaches that reflect the varying digitalmaturity of actors in pre-digitalised ecosystems.


Second, although qualitative data and a single-case study research design werewell-suited for present purposes, alternative methodologies are likely to provideadditional insights. For example, it seems worthwhile to examine the impact ofdigitalisation on performance, with specific reference to technology as an operantresource at both firm and ecosystem levels. Similarly, in terms of both theory andpractical utility, generalisability may be enhanced by quantifying the respective roleand impact of weak and strong ties. On a related note, the interplay between technol-ogy, strength of ties, and resource integration patterns should be studied in greaterdepth. For instance, future research might examine how variations in the magnitude ofeach of these three factors across ecosystems (and possibly different sequences ofdeployment) ultimately affect the scope and complexity of their interplay.

Finally, while we focused here on ‘analytical intelligence’ (Huang & Rust, 2018) – that is,technology that can process information to solve a problem, learn from it, and adaptsystematically – more advanced forms of technology support intuitive and empatheticlearning and adaptation based on understanding and experience. As these forms oftechnology – such as autonomous shipping – begin to make major inroads, with obser-vable disruptive impacts on firms and service ecosystems, future research should examinethe effects on resource integration. As the boundary between human actors and technol-ogy increasingly disappears (Breidbach et al., 2018), the latter is expected to shift evenfurther along the operand–operant resource spectrum, possibly to the extent of achievingagency. As the ramifications of this evolution would further affect the interplay betweentechnology, strong and weak ties, and resource integration patterns, longitudinal researchwould provide deeper insights into the consequences of such technological shifts.

Note

1. Any similarity to an actual company with this name is purely coincidental.

Acknowledgments

Christian Kowalkowski, Bård Tronvoll and David Sörhammar acknowledge the support ofRiksbankens Jubileumsfond (The Swedish Foundation for Humanities and Social Sciences)(research grant number: P15-0232:1).

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors

Alexey Sklyar is Doctoral Candidate at the Department of Management and Engineering,Linköping University (Sweden). His research has been published in the Journal of BusinessResearch and Journal of Service Management.

Christian Kowalkowski is Professor of Industrial Marketing at Linköping University (Sweden). Hisresearch interests include service growth strategies, service business model innovation and solu-tions marketing. He is associate editor of the Journal of Service Management and Journal of Services


Marketing, advisory board member of Industrial Marketing Management, and an editorial boardmember for the Journal of Business Research, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Journal ofService Research, and Journal of Service Theory and Practice. He is the coauthor of Service Strategy inAction: A Practical Guide for Growing Your B2B Service and Solution Business (Service Strategy Press,2017).

David Sörhammar is Associate Professor of Marketing at Stockholm University (Sweden). Hisresearch interests include service innovation, co-creation and user innovations. His currentresearch focuses on the interplay between digitalisation and servitisation, as well as investigatinghow internationalisation occurs on the Internet. His research has been published in journals suchas Journal of Business Research and Marketing Theory.

Bård Tronvoll is Professor of Marketing at Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences (Norway)and at CTF – Service Research Centre at Karlstad University (Sweden). He is also a senior distin-guished researcher at Hanken School of Economics, Finland. Tronvoll is a member of the editorialadvisory board at Journal of Service Management and his work has been published in journals suchas Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Journal of Service Research, Journal of BusinessResearch, European Journal of Marketing, Journal of Service Management and Marketing Theory. Hisresearch interests include marketing theory, service innovation, customer complaining behaviour/service recovery and service marketing.

Funding

Christian Kowalkowski, Bård Tronvoll and David Sörhammar acknowledge the support ofRiksbankens Jubileumsfond (The Swedish Foundation for Humanities and Social Sciences)[research grant number: P15-0232:1].

ORCID

Alexey Sklyar http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5483-1745Christian Kowalkowski http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4081-9737David Sörhammar http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5558-9014Bård Tronvoll http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5605-9285

References

Akaka, M. A., & Vargo, S. L. (2014). Technology as an operant resource in service (eco)systems.Information Systems and e-Business Management, 12(3), 367–384.

Alchian, A., & Demsetz, H. (1972). Production, information costs, and economic organization.American Economic Review, 62(5), 777.

Alderson, W. (1965). Dynamic marketing behavior: A functionalist theory of marketing. Homewood: Irwin.Aldrich, H. E., Elam, A., & Reese, P. R. (1996). Strong ties, weak ties, and strangers: Do women

business owners differ from men in their use of networking to obtain assistance? In S. Birley &I. MacMillan (Eds.), Entrepreneurship in a global context (pp. 1–25). London: Routledge.

Balaji, M. S., & Roy, S. K. (2017). Value co-creation with internet of things technology in the retailindustry. Journal of Marketing Management, 33(1–2), 7–31.

Breidbach, C., Choi, S., Ellway, B., Keating, B. W., Kormusheva, K., Kowalkowski, C., . . . Maglio, P.(2018). Operating without operations: How is technology changing the role of the firm? Journalof Service Management, 29(5), 809–833.

Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2015). Business research methods. USA: Oxford University Press.Burt, R. S. (2003). The social structure of competition. Networks in the knowledge economy. New York,

NY: Oxford University Press.


Chandler, J. D., Danatzis, I., Wernicke, C., Akaka, M. A., & Reynolds, D. (2019). How does innovationemerge in a service ecosystem? Journal of Service Research, 22(1), 75–89.

Coleman, J. S. (1958). Snowball sampling: Problems and techniques of chain referral sampling.Human Organization, 17(4), 28–36.

Dacin, M. T., Goodstein, J., & Scott, W. R. (2002). Institutional theory and institutional change:Introduction to the special research forum. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 45–56.

Dubois, A., & Gadde, L. (2002). Systematic combining: An abductive approach to case research.Journal of Business Research, 55(7), 553–560.

Edvardsson, B., Kleinaltenkamp, M., Tronvoll, B., McHugh, P., & Windahl, C. (2014). Institutionallogics matter when coordinating resource integration. Marketing Theory, 14(3), 291–309.

Evans, P. (1989). The state as problem and solution: predation, embedded autonomy, andstructural change. In J. A. Hall & G. J. Ikenberry (Eds.), The state: Concepts in the social sciences(pp. 386–423). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. The American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.Granovetter, M. (1983). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. Sociological Theory, 1

(1983), 201.Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness.

American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510.Håkansson, H. (1989). Corporate technological behavior: Co-operation and networks. London:

Routledge.Håkansson, H., & Snehota, I. (1989). No business is an Island. Scandinavian Journal of Management,

5(3), 187–200.Halinen, A., & Törnroos, J.-Å. (2005). Using case methods in the study of contemporary business

networks. Journal of Business Research, 58(9), 1285–1297.Hoover, R. S., & Koerber, A. L. (2011). Using NVivo to answer the challenges of qualitative research

in professional communication: Benefits and best practices tutorial. IEEE Transactions onProfessional Communication, 54(1), 68–82.

Huang, M.-H., & Rust, R. T. (2018). Artificial intelligence in service. Journal of Service Research, 21(2),155–172.

Johanson, J., & Mattsson, L.-G. (1994). The markets-as-networks tradition in Sweden. In L. Gary,L. G. Laurent, & B. Pras (Eds.), Research traditions in marketing (pp. 321–346). London: KluwerAcademic.

Kleinaltenkamp, M., Brodie, R. J., Frow, P., Hughes, T., Peters, L. D., & Woratschek, H. (2012).Resource integration. Marketing Theory, 12(2), 201–205.

Kowalkowski, C., Persson Ridell, O., Röndell, J. G., & Sörhammar, D. (2012). The co-creative practiceof forming a value proposition. Journal of Marketing Management, 28(13–14).

Laud, G., Karpen, I. O., Mulye, R., & Rahman, K. (2015). The role of embeddedness for resourceintegration: Complementing S-D logic research through a social capital perspective. MarketingTheory, 15(4), 509–543.

Lawrence, T. B., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutions and institutional work. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy,T. B. Lawrence, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organization studies (2nd ed., pp.215–254). London: Sage.

Leonard-Barton, D. (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing newproduct development. Strategic Management Journal, 13(S1), 111–125.

Lieberman, M. B., & Montgomery, D. B. (1988). First-mover advantages. Strategic ManagementJournal, 9(S1), 41–58.

Lusch, R., & Vargo, S. (2014). Service-dominant logic: Premises, perspectives, possibilities. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Lusch, R. F., & Nambisan, S. (2015). Service innovation: A service-dominant logic perspective.Management Information Systems Quarterly, 39(1), 155–175.

Lusch, R. F., Vargo, S. L., & Tanniru, M. (2010). Service, value networks and learning. Journal of theAcademy of Marketing Science, 38(1), 19–31.


Madhavaram, S., & Hunt, S. D. (2008). The service-dominant logic and a hierarchy of operantresources: Developing masterful operant resources and implications for marketing strategy.Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 67–82.

Maglio, P. P., & Lim, C. (2018). Innovation and smart service systems. In F. Gallouj & F. Djellal (Eds.),A research agenda for service innovation (pp. 103–115). Northampton, MA: Edward ElgarPublishing.

Meadows, D. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer. White River Junction: Chelsea Green.Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Miller, S. (2014). Social Institutions. In E. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (pp.

514–518). Stanford, CA: Stanford University.Nambisan, S. (2013). Information technology and product/service innovation: A Brief assessment

and some suggestions for future research. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 14(4), 215–226.

Newman, L., & Dale, A. (2005). The role of agency in sustainable local community development.Local Environment, 10(5), 477–486.

Normann, R. (2001). Reframing business: When the map changes the landscape. New York: JohnWiley & Sons.

North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. New York, NY:Cambridge University Press.

Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking of the concept of technology inorganizations. Organization Science, 3(3), 398–427.

Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action.New York: Cambridge University Press.

Pinch, T. J., & Bijker, W. E. (1984). The social construction of facts and artefacts: Or how thesociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. Social Studies ofScience, 14(3), 399–441.

Rifkin, J. (2014). The zero marginal cost society: The internet of things, the collaborative commons,and the eclipse of capitalism. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2012). Research methods for business students (Vol. 6). Essex:Prentice Hall.

Scott, W. R. (2008). Institutions and organizations: Ideas and interests (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Siltaloppi, J., & Vargo, S. L. (2017). Triads: A review and analytical framework. Marketing Theory, 17

(4), 395–414.Sklyar, A., Kowalkowski, C., Tronvoll, B., & Sörhammar, D. (2019). Organizing for digital servitization:

A service ecosystem perspective. Journal of Business Research. Advance online publication.doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.02.012

Storbacka, K., Brodie, R. J., Böhmann, T., Maglio, P. P., & Nenonen, S. (2016). Actor engagement asa microfoundation for value co-creation. Journal of Business Research, 69, 8.

Tronvoll, B. (2017). The actor: The key determinator in service ecosystems. Systems, 5(2), 38.Ulaga, W., & Reinartz, W. J. (2011). Hybrid offerings: How manufacturing firms combine goods and

services successfully. Journal of Marketing, 75(6), 5–23.Uzzi, B. (1996). The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of

organizations: The network effect. American Sociological Review, 61(4), 674.Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2016). Institutions and axioms: An extension and update of

service-dominant logic. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(1), 5–23.Wieland, H., Hartmann, N. N., & Vargo, S. L. (2017). Business models as service strategy. Journal of

the Academy of Marketing Science, 45(6), 925–943.Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research, design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.


https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.02.012

AbstractIntroductionTheoretical frameworkResource integration in service ecosystemsEcosystem change and the strength of weak tiesTechnology as operand and operant resource

Research methodApproach and samplingData collection and analysis

FindingsPre-digitalised service ecosystemDigitalised service ecosystem

DiscussionImplications for theory and practiceTheoretical implicationsManagerial implications

Limitations and further researchNoteAcknowledgmentsDisclosure statementNotes on contributorsFundingORCIDReferences

Resource integration through digitalisation: a service...

Documents

Transcript of Resource integration through digitalisation: a service...